I would expect that those windows be more resistant to heat considering the distance they have from the engines, in case something went wrong.
For the engine to melt a window, something has gone wrong enough that this tolerance isn't material. (You'd need a lot of heat. Plus enough turbulence to blow it laterally inward, but not so much that it's allowed to cool. That combination suggests a loss of power and a low-speed, i.e. low-altitude, stall.)
From the article: "They located the source of the noise as a dislodged window pane aft of the over wing exit."
The engines are under the wing; the affected seals were over it.
If you're melting the window panes in this scenario from the engines, you're having a really, really bad day. Plus, the noise increase from a missing window pant would likely be the smallest of the warning signs.
[1] The complete list of options are typically starvation, suppression, evacuation. Apply in that order and do so quickly.
"Starvation, suppression, and evacuation" needs neither "emergency landing" nor "don a parachute" to be added to it to be understandable. Both are just prerequisite steps to the "evacuation" mitigation.
That prerequisite step may never be completed, due to the aircraft being destroyed before it can be evacuated.
So no, if there is a fire, those 3 steps are your options regardless of the aircraft's location or altitude.
Interesting reversal: in my younger years I flew all over the planet, I can't even begin to estimate on how many flights I've been. And then, a couple of really bad flights in succession and I actually find it very difficult to contemplate flying again even if I know that statistically it's pretty safe and I'm exaggerating. Rationality only goes so far, apparently if you scare the lizard good a couple of times he remembers.
There is that one case that made the news worldwide for months because of how hard it is... and I never heard about any other one.
The part about smaller planes makes a lot of sense.
Also it gives me something to do other then sitting in an airport terminal because the plane is delayed due to maintenance issues.
Except for the toaster, the bloody toaster is always acting up.
What a silly thing to say. First of all not all water is ocean. Second the speeds and forces involved in a landing and in a crashing are very different.
Here is how an aftermath of a water landing looks like: https://youtu.be/x02cA6eamq0?si=-dQsJm353WySpv0Z
As you can see the airplane is designed to float.
I appreciate this, er, implicit understatement.
heat from an engine is directed straight out the back by nature of the turbines.
modern engines are also what are called "high bypass ratio" engines, where the outer ring of the engine (closest to the cladding) is really just air flowing by. the combustion area is smaller, in the center.
The engines are under the wing, the windows are above the wing, they are not very close to the windows at all.
https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-industry/aircraft/operation...
A321 Neo LR is approved for that.
That generalizes to 'any plane with more than one engine can fly with one engine out'.
> The over-water part is that it can fly on one engine for a long distance to get back to an airport - which tends to be further away if you're flying over the ocean.
That's where certification comes in: not all twin engine planes are ETOPS certified.
> Basically having a bit more margin in the design for extended endurance with an engine out.
Yes, and that translates into much more work than just 'a bit more margin' under the hood, to get that margin you also will need to take this into account during the design phase of the aircraft, crew training, maintenance schedule etc. Incidents under ETOPS conditions are rated more severely than those in other situations.
Something to think about next time you're over the pacific.